Phil Hope: On 21 October, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), wrote to all MPs setting out the strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for 2006–08. This includes a greater funding focus on our priorities of ensuring a place in school or college, or an apprenticeship, for all young people; and—as was mentioned earlier—a focus on adults who lack a solid foundation of employability skills. These priorities are spelt out in the 14-to-19 White Paper and in the two skills White Papers that were agreed with the Treasury. They are also reflected in our FE allocations to providers in Somerset, which increased by 4 per cent. above inflation this year.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister comment of the fact that if a 16 to 18-year-old goes to a secondary school, they attract automatic funding for the school, but not if they go to a tertiary college? That puts Somerset at a severe disadvantage, because we have five excellent tertiary colleges that attract a lot of pupils from outside the county boundary, where funding does not follow the pupil. The situation is made much worse by the Government's cut in FE funding to those colleges. Will the Minister look again at the particular problems faced by such colleges in Somerset—problems caused by his Department and the Treasury?

Beverley Hughes: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is very ill informed. As I just explained, unauthorised absences cover circumstances that go well beyond persistent truancy. We reckon that about 2 per cent. of pupils are persistent truants, and Government action has caused schools to bear down on that in a very deliberate way. Hot spots have been identified, and there is a fast-track system of individual case management for the young people involved. Various measures for parents, including penalty notices and prosecution, are helping to tackle the problem in a meaningful way. It is also important to give support to young people, some of whom truant because of self-esteem problems or family difficulties. For the first time, those problems are being dealt with in a real way.

Bill Rammell: Government expenditure on higher education is increasing by about £2 billion between 2004–05 and 2007–08 to almost £9.5 billion. Higher education institutions are also benefiting from increases in research funding. Government funding beyond 2007–08 will be decided as part of the comprehensive spending review. Institutions will have an extra income from variable fees that is estimated to reach £1.35 billion in steady state by 2010.

Mike O'Brien: Every effort is made by the Crown Prosecution Service to make decisions within a reasonable period. However, due to the complexity of some cases, some decisions obviously take longer. The CPS must balance swift decisions with the need to get the decision right, based on a careful analysis of the evidence by experienced lawyers who operate under the code for Crown prosecutors.

Geoff Hoon: I am always grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for the entertainment that he provides, no doubt after scouring the pages of many local newspapers to produce the information that he sets before the House. As for the specific points that he made, I make it clear that the Government regard the debate about police reform as a matter of great importance. We could hold the debate in Westminster Hall before Christmas if the Opposition insist on it. [Hon. Members: "No."] There may not be time to hold the debate on the Floor of the House before Christmas, but I assure them that if it needs to be held here we can arrange that early in the new year.
	I have seen the reports about my noble Friend Lord Drayson. As for the question of substandard vaccines in general, I am confident that the vaccine supplies both to this country and to Her Majesty's armed forces are of the required standard. As for the energy supply, I am sorry to spoil the scaremongering tactics deployed by the shadow Leader of the House, but I should like to acquaint him with some important facts about the energy supply. Gas prices are rising throughout Europe, because they are linked to oil prices—that is a fact. The great majority of our businesses are not affected by the changes in gas prices, because they have contracted to buy their gas at fixed prices—again that is a fact. Gas prices here, despite the rise in the past year, are still some of the most competitive in Europe, and the same is true of our household bills—again, that is a fact. The national grid, which knows rather more about these matters than some Opposition Members, has made it clear in its winter outlook statement that there will not be a problem for domestic gas customers and smaller businesses and organisations, however severe the winter, barring freak technical disruptions. That, too, is a fact. It is important that Opposition Members consider the facts instead of entertaining us with their scaremongering tactics. They should bear in mind that, as Age Concern has pointed out, it is the elderly and the most vulnerable in our society who are most concerned about the kind of material that the shadow Leader of the House and others are issuing in a deliberate effort to upset people. That is simply intolerable and should not happen.
	As for the British rebate, Opposition Members have become obsessive about it over the years, but the Government's position has not changed. The rebate, as I made clear last week, was a direct consequence of the fact that the United Kingdom was paying a disproportionately large amount to the EU budget as the result of the common agricultural policy. The Government have made it clear that if the CAP is reformed to bring about lower payments by the UK the need for the rebate disappears. That is perfectly logical and proper, and it has been the Government's position throughout. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, it is obviously important that individuals who are prepared to volunteer to help people in our hospitals should do so with the minimum possible inconvenience.

Geoff Hoon: I have dealt with this question on a number of previous occasions, and I am sure that I have tested the limits of your patience, Mr. Speaker, because this is not strictly a matter for the Leader of the House or for the Chamber. I suggest that my right hon. Friend raises the matter at the regular meetings of the parliamentary Labour party. That seems to me to be where decisions on whether a free vote should be allowed should properly be discussed.

Geoff Hoon: The first stage of the consultation is scheduled to be concluded by 23 December, but that will happen only where police forces agree to amalgamation. If there is no such agreement, there is a further opportunity for consultation lasting another four months. There is every opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to set out their concerns, and it is important that the matter is widely discussed. I do not intend to repeat what I have already said about the need to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to set out their views in this Chamber, but should any structural changes be required there will obviously be opportunities for Members to vote on them once any necessary legislation is brought before the House.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. All those of us who are concerned about discipline in schools are worried about bullying, which is part of the problem that, sadly, too many of our children and young people face when they go to school. That is why the Government's most recent White Paper on education includes a chapter that specifically mentions bullying.

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Highways Agency is blocking much-needed development of business and housing in my constituency on the basis that that would add to congestion on the A1 western bypass around Gateshead and Newcastle? Can we have an early debate on the powers of the Highways Agency, which has failed over many years to take any action whatsoever to relieve congestion on that trunk road and is now using its powers to block much-needed development and redevelopment in my constituency?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right that it is important that all agencies that deal with crime locally are adequately staffed and have the appropriate resources to make a difference as close to the problem as possible. However, I hope that he agrees that, to make the resources available, it is only sensible to examine the management and organisational structures of the different agencies to ensure that they generate maximum efficiencies and do not, for example, simply duplicate services in small areas that could be tackled better regionally. We need to balance the importance of effective local services with the best management structures.

Desmond Swayne: May we have a statement from a Health Minister on the spread of MRSA? On Monday, when we discussed part 2 of the Equality Bill on religious equality, Labour Members said that the "proper" withdrawal of Bibles from hospitals was nothing to do with political correctness but that they were agents of the spread of MRSA. I have a Reuters report, which states that Gideons International was so shocked by the implication that the Bibles might be harbouring disease that it commissioned a study by a micro-biologist and a surgeon who said that it was nonsense. The Government and Gideons International cannot both be right so what is the answer?

Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House was careful in the way in which he quoted from the national grid winter outlook. He made no comments about its prospects for major manufacturing industry. When the all-party aluminium group met leaders of the aluminium industry on Monday, they were extremely worried about prospects for the winter. Their next meeting after the all-party group was with officials at the Department of Trade and Industry who had invited them there and wanted to know from manufacturing industry the impact on it of interruptions in supply this winter. Why on earth should DTI officials want to know from manufacturing industry what would happen if there were interruptions to supply if the Department were not worried that there might be power cuts? Please may we have a debate on energy policy in Government time soon because manufacturing matters to Conservative Members?

Geoff Hoon: In the dim and distant past, as a very young member of the Opposition Whips Office, I used to admire the skill and ability of the Conservative Whips Office in its management of parliamentary business. I recall asking a similar question from the Opposition Benches on one occasion, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that I received—that that is a matter for the Government.

Crispin Blunt: May I re-emphasise to the Leader of the House how bad it looks that we will not have a debate on police restructuring? Given that both Surrey's police authority and chief constable have expressed considerable reservations about the short time scale, have gone through one proposal and are now being invited to consider five different strategic proposals to go back to the Home Office by 23 December, and that the Surrey police authority will manage to have a public meeting on 19 December before their latest submissions go to the Home Office, surely to goodness we can debate the matter on the Floor of the House before Christmas.

Graham Brady: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point; the whole House will want that issue to be tackled with great vigour.
	We should note that we are considering not just the accession treaty but the protocol to it, which has particular implications for the applicant countries. Here, I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made in an intervention. Of course, I cannot go down the route of discussing an amendment that was tabled but not selected, Sir Michael, but I should point out that the protocol provides for the constitution's implementation in both accession countries, should it be in place at the time of accession. I do not want to go into detail on this issue, but it is absolutely clear that we ought to be much more certain about the kind of EU that we are considering bringing new member states into.
	The accession process continues: today, we are considering Romania and Bulgaria, and accession talks began recently for Croatia and Turkey. The more countries that begin the process, the greater is the need for real clarity about the nature of the EU.

Nicholas Clegg: Practical concerns. Therein lies a great and, I fear, adjacent debate that will no doubt arise at another time.
	Notwithstanding that cross-party consensus, some tension and legitimate concern arises from clause 1 and the terms on which Bulgaria and Romania are joining the EU. The treaty of accession provides a short-term safeguard clause that could jeopardise the final entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU, but only for 12 months. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised that issue on Second Reading. It is a legitimate one, and it has been echoed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
	What happens if Romania and Bulgaria are proved to have failed in their final preparations to become members of the EU? I fear that we are caught in a cleft stick. The accession treaty commits us to accepting Romania and Bulgaria into the EU almost come hell or high water. While there is a safeguard clause, it only defers but does not permanently postpone or put off accession. At a political level, once they have joined, the ability of the EU authorities to exercise any leverage over the domestic reform process is significantly weakened.
	As I mentioned on Second Reading, the manner in which the final stages of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria are handled would set an important precedent for much more controversial accessions, notably that of Turkey, if the negotiations with Turkey are ever concluded. The EU needs somehow, within fairly narrow parameters, to exercise influence over Romania and Bulgaria in the remaining stages of the accession process in as rigorous a manner as possible.
	I draw the attention of the Minister to the annexes, with which he will no doubt be familiar, to the accession treaty, which spell out in considerable detail what Romania and Bulgaria are expected to do to get over the final hurdle of their accession. I cite annexe IX, headed, "Specific commitments undertaken, and requirements accepted, by Romania at the conclusion of the accession negotiations on 14 December 2004". It says that Romania—the same applies to Bulgaria in a separate annexe—undertakes
	"To . . . implement an . . . Action Plan and Strategy for the Reform Of The Judiciary"
	to enact anti-corruption legislation and ensure
	"the effective independence of the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutors' Office . . . To conduct an independent audit of the . . . current National Anti-Corruption Strategy",
	to introduce
	"a clear legal framework for . . . co-operation between, gendarmerie and the police"
	and so on.
	In a separate annexe, there are similarly detailed requirements for Romania to respect the Schengen action plan and ensure a high level of control and surveillance at Romania's external borders, which will of course act as the external borders of the EU. Those are substantive commitments set out in some detail.I have no doubt that the Commission will return to an examination of those commitments when it draws up its own monitoring surveillance report—I forget the formal title—in spring next year.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that, if the Commission recommends a further 12-month delay because of any failure to implement those annexes, which I think are a legally binding part of the accession treaty alluded to in clause 1, the Government will accept that as necessary. In common with previous speakers in the Committee, I ask what will happen if, after that 12-month period Bulgaria and Romania have failed to implement the requirements to tackle corruption, ensure a secure external EU border, reform the judiciary and implement the necessary legislation to root out malpractice in the criminal justice system? What could we possibly do? The Minister referred to a period of three years during which the EU would be able to take some exceptional safeguard measures, but I should be grateful for any further detail he can provide about how they would operate during that crucial period, after which, I take it, there would be almost no meaningful leverage over the domestic reform process.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe referred to privatisation and his opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) talked about corruption. I want to bring the two subjects together.
	In other accessions to the European Union, we have seen rushed privatisation and a degree of corruption. In Hungary, for example, the leader of the alleged Socialist party made a personal fortune from privatisation. His party is now so keen on privatisation, so right-wing and so free market, it is no longer a socialist party in any sense. Indeed, the New Statesman cast a slur on the character of Baroness Thatcher by suggesting that, if she were Hungarian, she would vote for the Socialist party. That is unfair, because it is not at all a nice party. It is significant, however, that the Hungarian opposition party, which is Catholic-based, conservative and anti-communist, resists the privatisation of public services, and has become the party of the left.
	The Catholic collectivism that was typical of Christian Democrats in Europe is being broken down by a rush to neo-liberalism and the free market. That is where the real division is occurring, significantly in Germany where Angela Merkel is trying to move away from Catholic collectivism and towards the market. That causes tension in Germany, even in her party.
	I look forward to Bulgaria and Romania becoming members of the EU. Neo-liberalism and the free market should not be conditions of their membership. One reason that I am so keen on enlargement is that it would inevitably mean a much looser association of member states, where each country could determine its own economic policy according to its democratic choices. That is the Europe I want and I think one or two Opposition Members want that, too. They may choose to take a much more conservative approach to running economies. I might choose a more social democratic or democratic socialist approach, but we would have that democratic choice; it would not be determined by the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins: We have lived in a market economy since the second world war, but the extent of the state's role in the economy and the degree of public or private ownership is for each country to choose. Since the second world war, we have had a mixed economy, which worked extremely well in the first three decades. I advocate that approach to running our economy even now. It certainly worked better than what has happened since. In many areas of Europe, public utilities and services are still run in a traditional, social democratic, post-war way and they work extremely well. I would argue that case for the UK as well as for Europe.
	In Russia, after the collapse of communism, there was a rush to privatisation and at the same time the adoption of a hard rouble policy, which caused economic chaos. There was a serious reduction of output and living standards fell. Only when the rouble was floated and the process slowed down did the Russian economy begin to recover.
	Each country should be able to choose the exchange rate appropriate to its economic needs. One reason that I support the Chancellor so strongly in keeping us out of the euro is that we can choose the exchange rate suited to our needs. Exchange rates are essential springs and buffers between economies. They are necessary; they can be stable, there can be a pegged system, but they should be changeable. That is how we should operate with the new member states. They should not be encouraged to join the euro. While they are weaker, they should be able to decide what is best for their economies—choosing their own exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal balance between tax and spend.
	Bulgaria and Romania should be allowed to decide what is best for their economies and not told how to run them from outside by the EU. That may lead to problems and voices may call for a return to the old authoritarian system, although that would not be the wish of the democrats in the EU. The EU should not press strongly that those economies operate in a particular way; it should allow them to operate as is best in each case. We should open our markets to some of their goods and allow them to depreciate their currency if that would make them more competitive. We should urge them to adopt proper rules for their workers, such as good trade union standards and employment rights, so that workers have a proper share of the benefits of their developing economies, but we should not insist that they privatise their economies.
	Recently, I visited Austria and Hungary with the Rail Freight Group to look at rail freight facilities. In Hungary, we spoke to senior figures in the Government and the railway industry about rail freight. The bulk of the rail freight system is still publicly owned and it is doing well. It makes a profit and provides the Government with funds that help the Hungarian people. There is a small private sector that is losing money but there is still pressure to privatise. If the Hungarian rail freight system was privatised and bought up, perhaps by a Russian oligarch with plenty of spare cash, the profits would not go to the Hungarian people. It could go towards buying expensive football clubs in Britain—who knows? At present, the benefits of that publicly owned freight system go to the Hungarian people. That is what we should allow those countries to do, not force them to privatise.

Douglas Alexander: I was just observing to my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that the words "Bulgaria" and "Romania" had not yet been uttered by the hon. Gentleman and was pointing out the fact that we have debated the Bill on Second Reading, when hon. Members had the opportunity to range widely in their remarks.

William Cash: Indeed. The Prime Minister's speech to the European Parliament and his and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches on the reform of the EU—all of which will have an impact on Bulgaria and Romania, let alone the other countries in eastern and central Europe and elsewhere—combine to illustrate the fact that, struggling against the elite of Europe, there are apparently glimmerings of Euroscepticism in the future Prime Minister, by which I mean, in immediate terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everyone knows that that change will happen in the next 18 months, and anyone who has read the books of people such as Robert Peston and others who provide well-sourced, intelligent analyses of what is going on know what elements are involved.
	I refer, for example, to the Treasury pamphlet that the Chancellor of Exchequer produced the other day in which he clearly repudiated even the social model for Europe. I should be interested to know whether or not the Minister was party to that pamphlet, which amounted to a repudiation of the existing European economic model. The Chancellor called for more global markets and more competitiveness. He illustrated his concern that the Lisbon agenda was not functioning properly.

Wayne David: This has developed into an interesting and broad debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to bring things back to Bill and the clause in particular. I shall also keep my comments brief.
	I have visited Bulgaria regularly for a number of years and have seen at first hand the remarkable progress there. There is genuine political consensus and, I believe, a feeling throughout the country that joining the EU is essentially desirable because it will enhance the economy and reinforce Bulgaria's democratic development.
	Successful negotiations have led to the treaty that we are considering. The European Commission has conducted various reports. Recently, however, it concluded that there are serious shortcomings in Bulgaria and that problems need to be addressed rapidly and firmly before it is adjudged ready to join the EU. The comprehensive monitoring report set out clearly and starkly both what progress has been made and what needs to be done. We are waiting for the final recommendation of the European Commission to the Council in April or May next year.
	Among the concerns expressed by the European Commission about Bulgaria are the large number of uninsured vehicles, shortcomings in the veterinary sector, and the need to reinforce the administrative structures, in particular with a view to administering European agricultural and structural funds effectively. Concerns have been expressed about the criminal justice system and, as has been mentioned, how the Roma minority are treated.
	Some of those issues were discussed yesterday in the European Scrutiny Committee. The Bulgarian ambassador took part in that discussion. He went to great lengths to reassure us that the concerns were being taken seriously and were being addressed effectively. It is worth reinforcing that great strides have been made in Bulgaria. The country is now a true democracy. Democratic reforms are firm and, in my view, irrevocable. Most of the European acquis communautaire has been implemented into Bulgarian law. Economic growth is consistent. In 2004, for example, the rate was 5.6 per cent. It undoubtedly has a functioning market economy, as the European Commission concluded.
	In fairness, however, it is true to say that over the past few years there was a decline in the momentum towards reform, but since the election of a new Government in June this year, the reform process has gained momentum. A new penal code has been introduced, and there cannot be any doubt that there is a strong political commitment to ensure that the remaining reforms are implemented effectively and speedily.
	The European Commission should give an objective analysis of what is happening in Bulgaria. It is important, both for the interests of both Bulgaria and the EU, that the Commission make a firm assessment. However, there is danger of being too insistent that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed so that things are meticulously in place before Bulgaria can join the EU. In the last wave of accession, a number of countries expressed concern about Slovakia's preparedness to join the EU, given that other accession states had made advances. Nevertheless, the benefit of the doubt was given to Slovakia, and since it joined the EU, it has made remarkable progress. Arguably, it has done so quicker than any other country that joined at the time.
	We should look fairly and objectively at what is happening in Bulgaria, but we must also look at the way in which things are changing before we determine whether a one-year delay would be detrimental to progress in that country or would enhance it. We should be firm but fair. As well as looking at what is happening in Bulgaria and Romania, we must always keep at the back of our mind the centrality of the process of enlargement to Europe's development. A vision of the EU is developing not as a union of elitist or exclusive nation states but as an expanding union always seeking to embrace more countries. That is a positive process.

Graham Brady: As we come to consider the part of the Bill dealing with the free movement of workers, one of the unintended aspects of free movement of workers applies to the Conservative Benches: my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who was to have dealt with the amendment, has to be in another Committee shortly, so I am moving into her shoes—an unwise thought, perhaps.
	Clause 2 and the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, amendment No. 9, relate to an important aspect of the Bill and some of the implications of membership. It is particularly important because of the recent history of the accession of new member states to the EU. Clause 2 represents a welcome acceptance by the Government that their projections of the consequences of the free movement of workers from the accession countries last year were wrong by a significant factor. Whereas they suggested that only a few thousand workers would come to the UK following accession, some 277,000 workers have come under the registration scheme. I accept that that process has gone smoothly and there have been no particular difficulties.
	It is interesting that the Government none the less saw the importance of putting the measures in place in clause 2. As was alluded to by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and Opposition Members, the two accession countries that we are considering today are quite different from many of those that came into the EU last year. The difference in economic strength is much more profound. The provisions that the Government are putting in place and the powers they are seeking to take to control the free movement of workers in that context are wise. It is inevitably possible that, given the marked difference in income between Romania and Bulgaria and the existing member states, especially some of the wealthier member states such as the United Kingdom, there could be significant pressure of migration. It is sensible that the Government should take a precautionary approach regarding the free movement of workers.
	That is particularly important in view of the geographical perspective provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), relating to the routes into Europe that the new accession countries constitute both for people trafficking and for the drugs trade. Bulgaria is known to be a major transit country for illegal drugs, as well as a producer country. It is important and appropriate that the measures should be taken.
	The Government have, however, not yet enlightened the Committee about the outcome of their assessment or analysis, whether they anticipate using the powers in clause 2, and whether they envisage instituting any major control for a transitional period, making use of the available derogations to prevent significant unforeseen movement of people into the United Kingdom. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to introduce some transparency to the process. It would require the Government to lay before Parliament no later than four months before the date of accession a report on the Government's assessment of the effect of the free movement of workers from the acceding states, and it would also require subsequent reports on the actual effect of such movements of workers.
	As I have said, given the marked difference between the predictions about the previous 10 accession countries and the actual number of migrants who have come to the United Kingdom, it seems important and appropriate that the Government should publish a frank and detailed assessment of what they anticipate will happen and provide this House with regular, detailed updates as the accessions move forwards.

Doug Henderson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I would not deny that in the short term. However, there is the relationship between Ireland and the United States. It could be said that 15 or 20 years ago the immigration of skilled technicians in the IT industry and in other industries to the United States denuded the Irish economy of key workers. Once those people have enjoyed some life in the United States and perhaps picked up other skills, many of their skills have returned to Ireland. For example, some of my wife's family have returned from making their money, so to speak, in the United States. They have come back to Ireland, where they continue to run businesses and so on. The same has happened to some extent already in Poland. Some people have returned to Poland who perhaps have been within the EU for some while. An optimistic prospect is that the same will happen in Romania and Bulgaria.
	I do not want to pretend that it is all easy—all sun and light. It is not. Problems arise from international migration. The main benefit is the countering of wage inflation in the developed world. In our case, we should spend more resources on raising the levels of education of those immigrants who come to our nation. They do not all have the skilled to which I have been referring. Some lack skills, and they need to be skilled by us. They need to learn more about our way of life.
	It is impossible ever to prevent people who move from one part of the world to another not to stay in close proximity to the people and the culture that they know, and to the friends that they have. People will do that. The Scots, the Geordies and the Irish do that wherever they go in the world, and so will people from Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere. However, it is vital that they begin to understand the way of life in this country. That is not the way of life that might have been stereotyped in the 1950s. There is a different way of life in Britain in the first decade of the 21st century. People who come to our country have to learn that way of life and help to contribute to change that way of life by the next decade.
	I strongly support the Bill. I anticipate that the Government will be able to accommodate the general points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. We all want to know what is happening and we all need a statistical basis. Please let us interpret clause 2 in a generous and enlightened way. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that he intends to do so when he replies.

Andy Burnham: We do not. The decision is in our hands but it is sensible to ascertain what other countries are planning to do before taking a unilateral decision. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, with Sweden and the Republic of Ireland, we made a different decision from that of our partners about the eight accession countries. Nevertheless, the views of our partners have a bearing on the overall decision and they are a factor that we need to take into account.
	The strength of the clause, which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledged—I thank him for that—is that it enables us to keep our options open and make a decision that balances all the factors that I outlined. We believe that that is the right response because it affords the Government the flexibility that we need with the approval of Parliament.

Andy Burnham: There are such figures. I do not have them immediately to hand, but I can certainly make them available to the hon. Gentleman. Nationals of Romania and Bulgaria are, of course, also registered to work here legally as self-employed persons running their own businesses.
	We believe that it is the right approach, with the approval of Parliament, to judge the decision in response to circumstances at the time of accession, whether that be 1 January 2007 or 2008. Furthermore, we believe that a decision now on what level of access to grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers on accession would clearly be premature and not take into account the relevant factors that I mentioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made a helpful contribution, in which he urged me and other Home Office Ministers to consider the positive side of migration, and to take a positive view of the measures before the House. He is right to put it in that way, as we should conduct this debate positively. If some of the newspaper headlines at the time were to be believed, the world was going to end the day after the last round of enlargement. Of course, that did not happen. As he rightly pointed out, a story is run in parts of the media that migration is wholly bad, or is to be tolerated at the edges for bringing a marginal benefit. He is right to take those arguments head-on, and the Government should do so. As he said, the experience of opening our labour markets and allowing greater access than do some other European countries has been good for the UK economy, and for the regional economies of this country.
	I would wager a lot of money that those 293,000 people have put far more into this country than they have taken out. As the figures show, there has been very little recourse to in-work benefits and other social security support. Their contribution is therefore huge. They are filling gaps in our labour market and performing a vital role. I accept my hon. Friend's basic point that our precise decision must be guided at the time by relevant factors such as those that I have laid out. I agree, however, that our earlier decision has been good for business and the regional economies of this country, and for our standing in the European Union, particularly among the 10 member states that we are talking about today.
	I want to run through some of the structure of the clause before turning to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. Subsections (1) and (2) allow regulations to be made that will grant Bulgarian and Romanian workers the rights of European economic area nationals to enter and work in the UK. Subsections (3) and (4) provide for the implementation of a possible compulsory registration scheme. Subsection (5) provides for supplementary or transitional measures which may be required, for example, to move Bulgarian and Romanian nationals currently in the UK under a work permit scheme to a future registration scheme. It also allows for the regulations to make different provision for different cases. They could, for instance, differentiate between Bulgarian and Romanian workers, or indeed between plumbers and doctors. That relates to some of the information sought by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, which I shall try to provide for him.
	Subsection (5) relates to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am relieved that he is not here to speak to it, as it was entirely pointless, and the Committee will not now be delayed by unnecessary debate on it.
	Let me correct a popular misconception about the free movement of persons within the EU. That right exists outside clause 2, and it is important for that to be made clear. Free movement is a fundamental principle of the European Union. Under the accession treaty, nationals of Bulgaria and Romania will have the right to enter and reside in all the existing member states for a wide variety of purposes, including holidays, study, retirement and indeed business activity. That was agreed unanimously by the 25 current member states.
	The transitional measures allowed by the treaty relate solely to the free movement of workers. Nationals of Bulgaria and Romania affected by the measures will not automatically be allowed to enter and reside in the 25 EU member countries for the purpose of employment, but they will be able to do so for the other purposes to which I referred.
	For those reasons, the transitional periods are limited in scope. They are also limited in time. All the measures for which clause 2 provides will be relevant for a maximum of seven years after accession. Free movement for workers across the Union remains the medium-term objective, and it is essential for the efficient functioning of the single market. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made that point.
	That is why the accession treaty requires the Council to conduct a review of restrictions on access to workers about two years after accession. Indeed, we are close to the date for the review of restrictions imposed on new member states in May 2004. The Government will communicate their decision on any further arrangements in spring next year. It is likely that, following the review, several more of the 15 EU member states will join the UK, Sweden and Ireland in allowing full access to their labour markets. That will be a positive development for them.
	As I have said, our experience of enlargement has been extremely positive. Most of the workers who have travelled to the UK since May 2004 are young and have taken jobs throughout the country that have been left vacant. They have been employed in a broad range of industries, from health care to business administration to farming—industries in which there are serious gaps. They are contributing to our economic growth and to our tax revenues. It seems that many young people are coming for short periods to find out what living in this country is like, and then going back. That can only be a positive development, and I believe that it will benefit both countries in the long term.

Graham Brady: The Minister is being very helpful and I am grateful. Can he be just a little more helpful by undertaking to publish regular analysis to update the position following accession?

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had a good afternoon's debate, with stimulating and thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House. Let me begin, as I did on Second Reading, by paying heartfelt and genuine tribute to the all-party nature of the consensus abroad in this debate at every stage of the Bill's passage. I welcome the strong and powerful arguments that we have heard in support of enlargement, and in particular of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession. It is clear that all Members recognise the important role that enlargement has already played in developing the prosperous and stable Europe in which we live today. Romania's and Bulgaria's accession will further contribute to political stability and security in our neighbourhood, and create new economic opportunities for British citizens and companies.
	As we have discussed, it is clear that there are a number of areas in which more work is needed if Romania and Bulgaria are to be ready for European Union membership in 2007. The Commission's comprehensive monitoring report, which was published in October—it has been the subject of debate already this afternoon—set out a range of issues in the fields of justice and home affairs, agriculture, environment and administrative capacity that require urgent attention. I know that this was a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), and I can assure him and the House that we are working closely with both Governments to help them to implement these outstanding commitments. In recent meetings with both countries' Europe Ministers, I underlined the importance of tackling the remaining problems. I am pleased to say that both expressed a real commitment to implementing the necessary reforms, and they set out a number of areas where progress is already being made.
	This Third Reading is an important and historic moment. The Bill may be small, but its impact will be substantial. For 30 million people, European Union accession represents a new dawn and the final step in a difficult journey from dictatorship to democracy. The impact of accession will not, of course, be limited to Romania and Bulgaria; their accession will bring benefits to all of Europe. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that the United Kingdom looks forward to welcoming Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nicholas Clegg: I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion. It underlines the importance of this positive step not only for Romania and Bulgaria but for the European Union as a whole. I join others in reminding the House that the vision of an ever-wider and more diverse EU has for a long time been a particularly British vision of the European Union and before it the European Community, which has united political opinion across parties for a long time. It is good to see that that fundamental view has held true here today. It is not a view that is shared in other parts of the EU. I doubt that in Paris one would find quite the same amount of cross-party consensus on this latest step in the journey of EU enlargement. It remains an expression of great strategic vision on the part of Britain as a whole that we have prosecuted this process as successfully as we have.
	Some important points have been made during the consideration of the Bill about the final steps of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU and the absolute need for real rigour in ensuring that the outstanding measures that need to be taken in those two countries are taken and that the safeguard measures are used in all seriousness and not merely as a fig leaf for enlargement and accession at all costs. That concern about the final stages of accession should not be viewed as some last-minute series of obstacles to their rightful claim to join the EU. It is borne of a serious belief that if further enlargements are to occur in a politically, economically and socially sustainable way in the decades ahead, we must set the right precedent today.

Peter Bone: I was disappointed that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but I was grateful for the comments made by both Ministers. I broadly welcome the Bill. Enlargement of the European Union is good for everyone. The larger the single market, the more prosperous its peoples become. Clearly, the addition of 30 million consumers from Bulgaria and Romania is to be welcomed. It is an added bonus that we are bringing in people who have been freed from the tyranny of communism. I would go on to argue for the enlargement of the EU to such an extent that it joins with the North American Free Trade Agreement to create a transatlantic free trade area, which would create a huge market and be of enormous benefit to its peoples. In this regard, we should welcome and encourage Romania and Bulgaria into the EU.
	I have concerns on two fronts. One is the process of Bulgaria and Romania's accession. The other is the effects on the UK of these countries joining the European Union. Bulgaria and Romania are two countries that are only now emerging from the throes of Soviet domination. The defeat of communism in those countries and the creation of freedom and democracy were of course championed by Baroness Thatcher and her Conservative Governments. The two countries are now entering into the most fundamental change since the fall of communism. However, one of the great freedoms that the people of Bulgaria and Romania have gained from the fall of communism is the right to determine their own affairs and to vote on issues that affect their lives. Yet the Bulgarian and Romanian people have not been given the chance to vote on this fundamental change. That shows the ultimate failing of the system and highlights how undemocratic the process of EU accession is.
	The EU can demand all sorts of regulations and laws and practices, but the one thing that it does not demand is that the people of the countries acceding to it have a choice in whether they want to be part of the EU. Is that because the EU fears the verdict of the people? Has it not learned from the fiasco of the European constitution? Should it not be a condition that every country that wants to join the EU should hold a referendum?
	As the citizens of those two countries have not been given the chance to vote on whether they want to be part of the EU we have only the views expressed in opinion polls to show the strength of opposition to accession. Every second person surveyed in Bulgaria was concerned that their country would have to contribute more than it would receive from the EU budget. More than half of those surveyed in Bulgaria feared that accession would create difficulties for the country's farmers. In a survey commissioned by the delegation of the European Commission in Romania, 56 per cent. of Romanians believed that accession would bring more drawbacks than advantages in the short term.
	The Minister may rightly point out that no such referendum was held in the United Kingdom. One sunny morning, I woke up and the people of the United Kingdom found that they were no longer in the European Community but in the European Union. The people of Britain were never given the chance to say whether they wanted to be in the EU. They were never asked whether they wanted to be in a European superstate, with its own Parliament, its own President, its own flag and its own Court, all of which is costing billions of pounds a year and a significant loss of British sovereignty. However, that strengthens the argument that Bulgarians and Romanians should have the right to a referendum. The citizens of those accession countries are denied a fundamental democratic choice.
	My second concern is that the Government have not made clear what restrictions, if any, will be imposed on the accession countries with regard to free movement to the UK, notwithstanding the Minister's earlier comments. The Government's prediction of immigration from the 10 accession countries fell severely short of the actual figure. Surely, they need to outline the restrictions they will impose on the two accession countries before it is too late, because it could be little more than a year before Romania and Bulgaria are admitted to the EU and I do not see why we should have to wait to hear what our partners say about the issue before we make our decision.
	It is not unreasonable to ask for details about the restrictions that will be imposed on the free movement of workers from Bulgaria and Romania. There are no details in the Bill about whether people coming to the UK from Bulgaria and Romania will automatically be entitled to benefit. Will they be entitled to housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance or incapacity benefit and if so, when? The Bill does not answer those questions.
	Many of my constituents are concerned that migrants from eastern Europe are automatically entitled to benefits. I am not making that point to produce headlines; in fact, it is the reverse. It can be argued that migration has not significantly increased the number of people on benefit, but because it is not clear in the Bill what the restrictions might be, we may attract headlines when Bulgaria and Romania accede.
	My greatest concern about free movement, which is shared by all Members, is that human trafficking will be made easier under the Bill. I am particularly concerned about the hideous trafficking of young women in the sex trade. Young women from eastern Europe are promised a new life with legitimate employment and opportunities in the UK, but they finish up as sex slaves sold from one degenerate to another. They are subject to the most appalling violence and intimidation, which goes as far as telling them that back home, perhaps in Bulgaria or Romania, their child will be killed if they do not continue to serve as sex slaves. That is worse than the intimidation and violence suffered by slaves in the 19th century. Will the Government bear that outrageous and disgraceful trafficking in mind when drawing up regulations for work permits?
	Before Romania and Bulgaria become part of the EU, they should toughen up regimes in their countries to stop human trafficking. That should be a crucial condition of their accession.
	I hope that the Government will take those points on board, and that my speech has been constructive and not party political.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Essential Drugs (Northern Ireland)

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Is she aware that the people face the same problems in not only Northern Ireland, but places such as Wellingborough?

Iris Robinson: I have absolutely no doubt about that. However, investigations by outsiders have indicated that we in Northern Ireland get 20 per cent. less for health care per head of population in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman should also bear it in mind that some conditions are caused by stress and mental illness due to 35 years of ongoing terrorism. I hope that he can put the matter in perspective and appreciate that we have a greater need because of all the terrorist activity that we have come through.

Iris Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. Having spoken to several psychiatrists in Northern Ireland, I totally concur with his views. One of the Cinderella-type structures in Northern Ireland is the mental health service. I intend to raise the question of mental health services and what is available in a future debate because the situation is intolerable and unacceptable. Children have to go into adult units, although that is detrimental to them and certainly does not enable them to move on and progress as we would like them to.
	Let me go back to what I was saying before I took interventions so that I can make my point. The imbalance in the number of people on waiting lists from board to board raises fears that there will be another postcode lottery for treatment if funds become available. That is because in 2004–05, one person in each board each month was given treatment. Surely that is a ludicrous means of distributing life-altering therapies in this day and age.
	Even if NICE guidelines are eventually adopted in the Province, those whose treatment is currently being delayed might not fit the guidelines when funding becomes available due to the inevitable progression of their conditions. The psychological effect of being told that a treatment will help one's quality of life, but then learning that it is not available for funding reasons, is totally immeasurable in human terms. An increasing number of people are being recommended for treatment by their neurologist, but are informed in the next breath that it might be two years before they can commence treatment because there is no money to fund it.
	To highlight the impact on individuals involved, I want to read from a letter that arrived in my office earlier this week. It was written by a lady from Killinchy, which is in my Strangford constituency. I will quote the letter in full, so please ignore all the nice things that she says and do not think that I am being conceited.
	The letter says:
	"I am writing to you to plead with you to please put forward a very strong case for the desperate need for Betaferon for MS patients in Northern Ireland. We desperately need more funding for Betaferon as it is the only specific drug available for patients suffering from this dreadful debilitating disease, in that it will help to slow down the progression of their symptoms. I was told yesterday, by Dr. Hawkins when I saw him for my appointment at the City Hospital, that I no longer have remitting relapsing MS, but have now got secondary progressive MS. Even though I have been suspecting this for quite a while myself, it still came as an awful shock when it was actually confirmed. Of course it causes all kinds of emotions to run through your mind. I was very tearful when first told—it was almost like being told your original diagnosis all over again. I was suddenly very frightened all over again, having got used to learning to live with it and learning to cope with the fact that everything is just starting to slow down—now having to fear that I am definitely just going to get progressively worse. I was a nurse, and so this probably sounds very na-ve, but it's incredible how much your mind can block out when you're in self-denial. When I was told that I met the criteria for Betaferon, it at least seemed like a light at the end of the tunnel—until—I was told that there was a long waiting list, and it would be quite some time before I would be able to get the drug that I so desperately needed now. The MS nurse that I saw was loathe to put a time scale on it".
	Unless by some chance extra funding was released specifically for beta interferon, that would be the case and she might pass the date when the drug could help her.
	The letter continued:
	"Please, please, please could you make an appeal to the government on behalf of all the people, whose lives would be made that bit more tolerable, if they could just be given the drugs that would ease their suffering and make their disease a bit more bearable and a bit more under control.
	I know that you do a lot of work for the MS Society and I thank you for that, but I am still begging you to do that little bit more by putting forward our case to the Government."
	How does the Minister respond to such a cry for help? That letter shows the strength of feeling and emotions experienced by patients awaiting disease modifying therapies.
	Also within the past few days, another lady from Belfast wrote to me saying:
	"I am 49 years of age, married with one daughter. I am writing to you as I have been informed by numerous people of the excellent work you have done in fighting on the side of multiple sclerosis sufferers. In April this year I was diagnosed with MS, which devastated both myself and my family, but I am determined to fight the disease in every way that I can. As I'm sure you know, the most effective treatment for MS is Interferon, which was prescribed by Dr Watt, the consultant neurologist in the Royal Victoria Hospital, but I was told that I would be placed on a waiting list as the Eastern Health Board had no funds to meet the cost of this treatment for approximately two years. I now purchase this drug privately, at a cost of £687.85 every four weeks, which is financially devastating to my family and I don't know how long I am going to be able to keep on funding this medication, which I have to tell you that I do feel the benefit of.
	I have read with great interest the statement made by the Minister of Health . . . regarding the £14 million being made available for the purchase of drugs over the next two years. I feel that the case of Interferon for MS sufferers should be impressed on the"
	Minister and the Eastern health and social services board, under whose jurisdiction this lady falls.
	The letter continues:
	"Interferon is the treatment to give hope of quality of life to fellow MS sufferers like myself. I can't believe that I have been put through all this just so the health authority can balance the books. Human life cannot and should not be measured in pounds. Like many other sufferers I'm scared of what the future may hold."
	Those are very moving and challenging remarks, as I am sure we would all agree.

Iris Robinson: I concur with my colleague. If the lady whose case I raised does not receive the appropriate drugs she may face the inevitability of selling her home and going into public sector accommodation. In this day and age, it is an utter disgrace that families should be put under such strain to obtain appropriate care for their loved ones.
	The situation for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers is no better than it is for people with multiple sclerosis. Waiting times in Northern Ireland for anti-TNF medications such as Enbrel and Remicade are four times longer than they are in England, and are much worse than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom or Europe. Rheumatology provision in the Province is much worse than in Great Britain. The recent strategic review of rheumatology services in Northern Ireland called for root and branch modernisation. We have the lowest number of rheumatologists per head of population in Europe, and we need more consultant rheumatologists, specialist nurses and allied health professionals. We also need a properly resourced paediatric rheumatology service because young people with juvenile arthritis currently have to wait four months for a first appointment. We need an appropriate paediatric rheumatology service with a lead consultant and a paediatric rheumatology nurse specialist.
	We deserve parity with other UK regions in the provision of anti-TNF therapies. More than 440 people in Northern Ireland will have to wait more than two years for Enbrel or Remicade, while their condition worsens all the time. More than two thirds of consultant rheumatologists in England and Wales are satisfied that they can prescribe those drugs when necessary, yet on 31 October, at Musgrave Park hospital in Belfast alone, there were 365 people on the waiting list for anti-TNF drugs, 62 of whom have been waiting more than two years. Money that hospitals were led to believe would be made available this financial year has not materialised. The message from the Department is that there will be a generous allocation in the next financial year, but those hospitals were given to believe that that would be the case this year. Arthritis sufferers fear that the publicity over the breast cancer drug Herceptin will result in treatments such as anti-TNF medications losing out. As I said earlier, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the £14 million of additional money that was provided in the recent announcement will aid the availability of those drugs.
	A rheumatologist recently commented:
	"I'm afraid we are getting pretty despondent again about this. The Boards were due to receive the Department's response to their Health and Wellbeing Improvement Plans about a month ago (which included additional allocations for high-cost drugs) but we haven't heard anything from them, and there are rumours that we may not get any additional anti-TNF funding this year. This is despite the fact that our anti-TNF waiting list now stands at well over 2 years. Indeed, we were led to believe that we would be getting additional funds in the current financial year to treat well over 50 new patients in Musgrave Park Hospital alone."
	Velcade is another drug for which there is great demand across the Province. It is the only new licensed treatment for multiple myeloma in the past 10 years, but patients in Northern Ireland cannot gain access to it, even though patients in Scotland, Wales and England can do so. Velcade offers both increased life expectancy and improved quality of life for patients with myeloma, who would otherwise face a terminal decline in their condition. Myeloma receives much less attention than other more notable cancers, but is a far bigger killer than both testicular and cervical cancer. Survival rates for myeloma patients have not improved in the past 10 years, with only 23 per cent. of patients living for more than five years.
	In Northern Ireland a very small number of patients would be suitable for Velcade. The cost would not be great, but the difference that it could make to the patient's quality of life and life expectancy would be immense. Velcade is a licensed drug. The decision to prescribe in Northern Ireland is not dependent on any assessment authority. Denying myeloma patients the treatment is a purely financial decision. Every year in Northern Ireland between 85 and 120 people are newly diagnosed with the disease. In 2003, 63 people died of it, including one young person in their 30s.
	Velcade is prescribed for patients who have received at least two prior treatments and whose condition is worsening. It is undergoing trials as a second-line treatment, owing to the success seen in its current use. It has been appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the All Wales Medicine Strategy Group. It is funded and available on the national health service in Scotland and in Wales. Although universal access to Velcade is not expected in England until NICE produces guidelines, a number of trusts already prescribe the drug. Clinicians are free to make a clinical judgment to prescribe unappraised drugs such as Velcade. Indeed, Department of Health circular 99/176 makes that clear to all primary care trusts.
	In Northern Ireland, funds for Velcade have not been made available because of the withdrawal of contingency funds to health boards, despite the fact that Belfast City hospital is the location for clinical trials for the treatment. Clinical trials for Velcade carried out in Northern Ireland were so promising that one trial was halted early to ensure that as many people as possible received the treatment. It is extraordinary, therefore, that the place where so much effort was put into testing the drug is the one UK region where it is not available. Many patients are left to wonder what the point is in conducting all that multimillion pound research, only to find that afterwards there is no money to fund the treatment.
	Another drug on which I have been lobbied is Teriparitide for the treatment of established osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. I understand that boards have not identified funding for it in the current financial year. Is this another drug that the Minister had in mind when he announced extra funding for drugs in Northern Ireland?
	Are the boards free to allocate the recent extra funding for drugs as they wish, or are there restrictions on which medications can be included? Can the Minister assure us that he will make the availability of essential drugs a priority in the Province, and that the Department will take responsibility for ensuring that there is adequate provision across Northern Ireland?

CORRECTION

Official Report, 23 November 2005, in column 1618: Division No. 107, under "Ayes" insert "Hague, rh Mr. William"; under "Noes", delete "Hague, rh Mr. William" and insert "Hall, Mr. Patrick".